Smuggler Archive
Thread: Anybody Know What Rock Bottom Faction Costs Are???
Page 3 of 3
DrevenStrobe
Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:03 am
#27
Vrond wrote:
/boogle
wow ok tring to follow this. max faction a colonel can hold is 120k now yes? Am I at least getting that much right?
/nod
Vrond
Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:11 am
#28
Ok I THINKI will like this system better from a smuggler role play point of view.
Basically we will need to wander the galaxy looking for the best buy on faction perks. Now if I could just live long enough to actually buy something that might be a step in the right direction
Ragnaat
Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:19 am
#29
Somebody please say I have this all wrong here.
Where is my incentive to place more bases?
Where is my incentive to take more enemy bases down?
1) The thrill of winning
2) Planetary control on the planets that care (tat, taboo, corellia)
3) As the war gets close on a planet the discout becomes next to nothing. so why not go all out and win the planet
4) if you're not interested in placing a base (or winning) then why do you care about the cost of a base anyway?
Its not a perfect system, but far better then it would be if it were the other way around... where if a side started getting a footing the more then won the cheaper it was for them to add or replace bases and thus the easier it was to jut keep winning.
And you know what... if its not such a big deal to have lost rori, so be it... give you a cheap place to fuel the war elsewhere.
more of my thoughts on why its not a bad way to go here in the tc forum
Where is my incentive to place more bases?
Where is my incentive to take more enemy bases down?
1) The thrill of winning
2) Planetary control on the planets that care (tat, taboo, corellia)
3) As the war gets close on a planet the discout becomes next to nothing. so why not go all out and win the planet
4) if you're not interested in placing a base (or winning) then why do you care about the cost of a base anyway?
Its not a perfect system, but far better then it would be if it were the other way around... where if a side started getting a footing the more then won the cheaper it was for them to add or replace bases and thus the easier it was to jut keep winning.
And you know what... if its not such a big deal to have lost rori, so be it... give you a cheap place to fuel the war elsewhere.
more of my thoughts on why its not a bad way to go here in the tc forum
Message Edited by Ragnaat on 02-24-2005 01:19 PM
zazo
Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:32 am
#30
the point of winning is to gain the edge over the enemy the point of giving incentive to the losers is to make sure that edge never gets too far that the game is completely out of balance.
if this win/loss ratio is done planet by planet let me tell you what will happen each side will choose to win and lose one planet lets say imps take naboo rebs take tat. Imps never place bases on tat because it effects their factional purchase ratio, rebs do the same on naboo. Which means only one planet will ever be in contention for any pvp or pve factional battles, Corellia.
all opposing factional bases on either Naboo or Tatooine will then become simply faction farms for the losing side since their incentive for taking bases down on those planets will be the loss of their factional discount.
I'm not saying I have the answers here but it is an issue. Certainly there are those of us that believe in playing honorably but unfortunatly a larger portion of the populous does not.
Ragnaat
Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:40 am
#31
If after 2 weeks you're still replacing bases enough to warrant making a pact with the other side to keep things cheap on, say, rori and dant... then thigns are working becasue the GCW is flourishing greatly elsewhere
And even with pacts, when you get into the numbers its not all that hard from one player to get on an alt drop a detach HQ of the opposing side to toss a wrench in things... especially if the ratio is really off (200 -6) to begin with
So I say wait to see where the numbers balance out once thigns get adjusted and then jump in the GCW forum and chat it up there.
And even with pacts, when you get into the numbers its not all that hard from one player to get on an alt drop a detach HQ of the opposing side to toss a wrench in things... especially if the ratio is really off (200 -6) to begin with
So I say wait to see where the numbers balance out once thigns get adjusted and then jump in the GCW forum and chat it up there.
zazo
Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:04 pm
#32
well I'm content to wait and see how things pan out but first off the only planets that matter atm is naboo corellia and tat I'm not sure how the ratios will be calculated on these planets but thats another discussion.
my point is this reduces the incentive to take enemy bases down and increases the incentive for faction farm bases to be placed. which cannot be removed by the same side.
Lets say like the scenerio above the rebellion decided they wanted to effect the empires faction discount. This is only further encouragement to place enemy bases a bunch of farms go down and imps lose their discount by virtue of gaining more control of their losing planet.
am I really the only one that see's this as a potentially huge problem?
Vrond
Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:42 am
#33
so far i am having fun.
As for the reason why to place bases? its to win. When you win the next time out it gets harder kinda like in pro sports where the champion of last year has the hardest schedual
Page 3 of 3